LawTalkers
Page 22 of 126 « First 122021 22 23243272122 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=879)

Tyrone Slothrop 07-27-2016 04:45 PM
Re: Moscow Girls Make Him Sing and Shout
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 502013)
The thing about the Supreme Court is that it is possibly the most important, but anyone who thinks that Trump will appoint a strong justice for limited constitutional government is smoking crack. Hillary will without a doubt appoint justices abhorrent to me. As Trump indicated with his attack on the "Mexican" judge, he's going to appoint someone who will cater to his every whim. Not someone who will limit the power of the Presidency. It's not a credible argument. While, in theory, Trump may accidentally stumble onto a position I don't find abhorrent, literally the only argument a Trump supporter can rationally make in his favor is that he's not Hillary. But that's not enough for me.
Is Merrick Garland abhorrent to you?

Quote:
If Hillary supports the Dem platform, she's not exactly a moderate.
You should talk to the Bernie supporters, who are convinced that she doesn't support it. I believe that they have pushed her to the left, but I also am convinced that her instincts are more centrist. My biggest fear about her is that she listens to too many people, and is too inclined to pick the consensus path. I say this not from a left-right perspective.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-27-2016 04:53 PM
Re: Moscow Girls Make Him Sing and Shout
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502014)
You won't hear me call Hill a moderate. I believe she was Bill's liberal conscience from the beginning, and remains roorted strongly left of center.

But I do think she is practical. She likes what works, not what fits an ideological mold.
Moderate on what issues? She is left of center in that she cares about civil rights and social policies that benefit women, children, the disabled, and other disadvantaged groups. In that the moderate position on these issues is to pay lip service, she is not moderate since she actually wants to get shit done.

On the economy, I believe she will be a Wall Street-oriented moderate, like her husband was. I think the same crowd has her ear.

On foreign policy, she's a hawk.

More generally, I think she will pursue incremental reform on a variety of fronts, but I don't see her shaking anything up. To me, that spells moderate. I think she'd be more effective than many other moderates at pursuing her moderate goals, but I don't think she's a raging lefty.

ThurgreedMarshall 07-27-2016 06:22 PM
Interesting Perspective
 
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...s-poor-whites/

TM

Tyrone Slothrop 07-27-2016 06:41 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 502023)
Yes, that's an interesting perspective.

The idea that poor whites they only get attitude from the left ("condescension" and "exasperation") is not quote right (and makes Tom Frank's point). The left wants to use the government to help in different ways, not just "handouts". That's not judging less and understanding more. The cultural resentment here is just so strong. And there's this funny blending of culture and class -- the author keeps talking about the "white working class", but he's really talking about regional attitudes, not class. His "elites" are different from the rich. Hard for me to square this with a professed belief in changing social norms.

eta: Apropos of all of which, I love the note at the very bottom about the picture of the lady in the Trump hat at the top.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-28-2016 12:16 AM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
I'll take four more years. I'm worried that Obama will be the best president of my lifetime.

Not Bob 07-28-2016 09:38 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 502023)
Very. This is the point that Chris Arnade and others have been making that sometimes comes across as an excuse for racism. While racism is in there, the witch's brew has more than one ingredient.

SEC_Chick 07-28-2016 10:08 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 502023)
Variations on this theme are pretty common, especially as everyone attempts to understand the Trump phenomenon:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-trump-america

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2016 11:58 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
The idea that poor whites they only get attitude from the left ("condescension" and "exasperation") is not quote right (and makes Tom Frank's point). The left wants to use the government to help in different ways, not just "handouts".
Perhaps it does. But skills retraining, the govt's other form of assistance, is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of the people written about in this excellent article have no hope of switching careers.

Trump promises them jobs and dignity. It's lies from him, of course, but the idea is on the right track. Our govt could assist them in the manner they seek with a massive New Deal style infrastructure rebuilding program. And I think we'll see it do exactly that in the coming decade. We either do something like that, or we give up on the lower middle class entirely.

Quote:
That's not judging less and understanding more. The cultural resentment here is just so strong. And there's this funny blending of culture and class -- the author keeps talking about the "white working class", but he's really talking about regional attitudes, not class. His "elites" are different from the rich. Hard for me to square this with a professed belief in changing social norms.
I don't think he's trying to change anything. He's telling us why a large segment of society isn't listening to elites.

As to the regional comment, yes and no. The angry working class person in Levittown isn't culturally 1:1 with the guy in WV. But the complaints are the same, and so is the attraction to Trump. They don't want to be simultaneously dictated to, ignored, and offered a handout.

The best of this excellent piece is where the author discusses personal responsibility. And it focuses on what I think is, strangely, the most positive element of a very bleak story. In voting for Trump, these lost souls are choosing to take their chances rather than bet on expansion of the safety net to sustain them. My knee jerk reaction is the same as Thomas Frank's ("these rubes are voting for a plutocrat who's going to screw them"). But that's elitist, and it's narrow-minded. What these simple people are doing is throwing a hand grenade at a system in which they no longer have a place. Perhaps that's anti-social, and it's probably foolish. But I have to admire the sentiment... "I'd rather possibly blow it all up than fade away, forgotten." Can't fault a man for that.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-28-2016 12:04 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502030)
Perhaps it does. But skills retraining, the govt's other form of assistance, is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of the people written about in this excellent article have no hope of switching careers.

Trump promises them jobs and dignity. It's lies from him, of course, but the idea is on the right track. Our govt could assist them in the manner they seek with a massive New Deal style infrastructure rebuilding program. And I think we'll see it do exactly that in the coming decade. We either do something like that, or we give up on the lower middle class entirely.



I don't think he's trying to change anything. He's telling us why a large segment of society isn't listening to elites.

As to the regional comment, yes and no. The angry working class person in Levittown isn't culturally 1:1 with the guy in WV. But the complaints are the same, and so is the attraction to Trump. They don't want to be simultaneously dictated to, ignored, and offered a handout.

The best of this excellent piece is where the author discusses personal responsibility. And it outlines what I think is, strangely, the most positive element of a very bleak story. In voting for Trump, these lost souls are choosing to take their chances rather than bet on expansion of the safety net to sustain them. My knee jerk reaction is the same as Thomas Frank's ("these rubes are voting for a plutocrat who's going to screw them"). But that's elitist, and it's narrow-minded. What these simple people are doing is throwing a hand grenade at a system in which they no longer have a place. Perhaps that's anti-social, and it's probably foolish. But I have to admire the sentiment... "I'd rather possibly blow it all up than fade away, forgotten."
Can't fault a man for that.
You're over-analyzing. A lot of people these people are angry, and Trump is angry. They don't care what they're promised or what he'll do, they just want anger.

That anger can result from economic displacement, it can result from inequalities around them, it can result from cultural shifts, or it can result from environmental issues, or any number of other things. But the anger isn't limited to the working class folks, there are plenty of rich people who are full of it too. I mean, look at Slave.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-28-2016 12:07 PM
Re: Name that Buffoon!
 
You know, Trump needs a nickname. He's always giving them to someone else.

What should his be? A few suggestions:

Don the Con
Traitor Trump
No Clue Trump
Comrade Donald

Pretty Little Flower 07-28-2016 12:16 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502030)
Perhaps it does. But skills retraining, the govt's other form of assistance, is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of the people written about in this excellent article have no hope of switching careers.

Trump promises them jobs and dignity. It's lies from him, of course, but the idea is on the right track. Our govt could assist them in the manner they seek with a massive New Deal style infrastructure rebuilding program. And I think we'll see it do exactly that in the coming decade. We either do something like that, or we give up on the lower middle class entirely.



I don't think he's trying to change anything. He's telling us why a large segment of society isn't listening to elites.

As to the regional comment, yes and no. The angry working class person in Levittown isn't culturally 1:1 with the guy in WV. But the complaints are the same, and so is the attraction to Trump. They don't want to be simultaneously dictated to, ignored, and offered a handout.

The best of this excellent piece is where the author discusses personal responsibility. And it focuses on what I think is, strangely, the most positive element of a very bleak story. In voting for Trump, these lost souls are choosing to take their chances rather than bet on expansion of the safety net to sustain them. My knee jerk reaction is the same as Thomas Frank's ("these rubes are voting for a plutocrat who's going to screw them"). But that's elitist, and it's narrow-minded. What these simple people are doing is throwing a hand grenade at a system in which they no longer have a place. Perhaps that's anti-social, and it's probably foolish. But I have to admire the sentiment... "I'd rather possibly blow it all up than fade away, forgotten." Can't fault a man for that.
Your hyper-romanticization of the Trump voter is as demented as it is unwavering. You're living in an alternate reality, but I guess we all inhabit our own alternate realities. That said, I can objectively confirm with 100% certainty that your alternate reality is super cray cray.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2016 12:23 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 502031)
You're over-analyzing. A lot of people these people are angry, and Trump is angry. They don't care what they're promised or what he'll do, they just want anger.

That anger can result from economic displacement, it can result from inequalities around them, it can result from cultural shifts, or it can result from environmental issues, or any number of other things. But the anger isn't limited to the working class folks, there are plenty of rich people who are full of it too. I mean, look at Slave.
One could say that about Black Lives Matter, and he'd be guilty of the same failure to adequately analyze the situation.

Nobody's angry without reason.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2016 12:26 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 502033)
Your hyper-romanticization of the Trump voter is as demented as it is unwavering. You're living in an alternate reality, but I guess we all inhabit our own alternate realities. That said, I can objectively confirm with 100% certainty that your alternate reality is super cray cray.
I'm not romanticizing anything. They're tragic, fucked people. I'm looking for some element of something positive.

ETA: I'm also not taking about "Trump voters." I'm talking about the poor, screwed people of pieces like the one linked who happen to be voting for Trump. These are obviously not all of his voters.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-28-2016 12:40 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502030)
Perhaps it does. But skills retraining, the govt's other form of assistance, is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Most of the people written about in this excellent article have no hope of switching careers.

Trump promises them jobs and dignity. It's lies from him, of course, but the idea is on the right track. Our govt could assist them in the manner they seek with a massive New Deal style infrastructure rebuilding program. And I think we'll see it do exactly that in the coming decade. We either do something like that, or we give up on the lower middle class entirely.
I agree that skills retraining is weak sauce. We should be spending money on infrastructure right now, which creates decent jobs. It's the Republicans who are standing in the way.

That said, there are parts of this country where the jobs aren't coming back. Trump isn't promising those people anything except that he'll stick it to the elites, and for a lot of people, that's enough.

Quote:
I don't think he's trying to change anything. He's telling us why a large segment of society isn't listening to elites.
I was quoting him.

Quote:
As to the regional comment, yes and no. The angry working class person in Levittown isn't culturally 1:1 with the guy in WV. But the complaints are the same, and so is the attraction to Trump. They don't want to be simultaneously dictated to, ignored, and offered a handout.
I think the complaints are a little different, and I think it's useful to hear the differences.

Quote:
The best of this excellent piece is where the author discusses personal responsibility. And it focuses on what I think is, strangely, the most positive element of a very bleak story. In voting for Trump, these lost souls are choosing to take their chances rather than bet on expansion of the safety net to sustain them. My knee jerk reaction is the same as Thomas Frank's ("these rubes are voting for a plutocrat who's going to screw them"). But that's elitist, and it's narrow-minded. What these simple people are doing is throwing a hand grenade at a system in which they no longer have a place. Perhaps that's anti-social, and it's probably foolish. But I have to admire the sentiment... "I'd rather possibly blow it all up than fade away, forgotten." Can't fault a man for that.
Sure you can. They're not just blowing up themselves.

If there's a party that believes in "I've got mine, and you're on your own," it's the Republican Party, and it has waged a war to make government less effective for decades. That war hurts working people.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2016 12:46 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 502033)
Your hyper-romanticization of the Trump voter is as demented as it is unwavering. You're living in an alternate reality, but I guess we all inhabit our own alternate realities. That said, I can objectively confirm with 100% certainty that your alternate reality is super cray cray.
The back and forths here are indicative of the kind of disconnect the author was describing.

You come in with an analysis that's almost always 1:1 with something one would hear from Rachel Maddow. Slave comes in with something you'd hear from Stuart Varney. (Just picked you guys because you're the most consistently at opposite poles.)

There's a lot of "narrative," even here. But how many Trump voters from Appalachia do you see every week? Right.

I think we'd all (including myself, prominently) do ourselves a great favor to borrow Not Bob's position: It's a "witches brew," and it's a lot more complex than what we think.

sebastian_dangerfield 07-28-2016 01:02 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
I agree that skills retraining is weak sauce. We should be spending money on infrastructure right now, which creates decent jobs. It's the Republicans who are standing in the way.
Agreed.

Quote:
That said, there are parts of this country where the jobs aren't coming back. Trump isn't promising those people anything except that he'll stick it to the elites, and for a lot of people, that's enough.
Infrastructure is almost everywhere.

But I hear your point. I think the sticking it to people thing is attractive because wealth is relative (if you can't be pulled up, pull others down) and elites are so often wrong, people don't see any reason for them to retain positions of authority.

Quote:
I was quoting him.
Strange comment for him to make among so many others demonstrating an unbridgeable chasm.

Quote:
I think the complaints are a little different, and I think it's useful to hear the differences.
Agreed. I think the core elements remain quite similar, however.

Quote:
Sure you can. They're not just blowing up themselves.
We're all in this together, no? If a guy thinks I've forgotten him and don't give a shit about him, what does he owe to me?

Quote:
If there's a party that believes in "I've got mine, and you're on your own," it's the Republican Party, and it has waged a war to make government less effective for decades. That war hurts working people.
Yes and no. Take regulation too far and you inhibit growth. Loosen it too much in an area like finance and you get 2008, which destroys everything.

The problem is its always a pendulum swing. We go from govt over-involvement to govt under-involvement. Only once in a blue moon do we get a Clinton/Gingrich situation where we're governed in the sweet spot.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-28-2016 01:10 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502034)
One could say that about Black Lives Matter, and he'd be guilty of the same failure to adequately analyze the situation.

Nobody's angry without reason.
My point simply is that there are many reasons.

For Time Immemorial, people have looked at themselves siting in Small Town Wherever and have said, there must be some way out of this place, I was born to run, can't wait to be a long time gone, gotta get me out of this place.

Sometimes, what's needed is a political movement or a better economy or a religious revival. Sometimes they need to get laid. Sometimes, they just need to take the stick out of their ass and stop making other people's lives just as miserable.

This is especially true with the angry country clubbers who've listened to too much Limbaugh.

And the religious bigots (hi cuz!) who are angry about women in the military, gays in public, and trans in the bathroom.

Stick. out. of. ass.

taxwonk 07-28-2016 01:32 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 502023)
This pretty much what I've been saying about Trump's base all along.

Adder 07-28-2016 02:37 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502030)
Our govt could assist them in the manner they seek with a massive New Deal style infrastructure rebuilding program. And I think we'll see it do exactly that in the coming decade.

We're in pretty desperate need of that infrastructure investment anyway (do not spend any time thinking about the age of the gas and water pipes in your city, for example), so we better do it.

Quote:
But I have to admire the sentiment... "I'd rather possibly blow it all up than fade away, forgotten." Can't fault a man for that.
This would be far more compelling if there was any indication they knew they were blowing it up.

Adder 07-28-2016 02:42 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502038)
Only once in a blue moon do we get a Clinton/Gingrich situation where we're governed in the sweet spot.
You're vastly overstating the influence of regulation (in this country anyway) on growth. The differences among Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush and Obama on regulation, generally, are not at all material to growth.

Sure, you can stifle an economy with regulation, but any threat of that being a US issue ended in the Reagan revolution.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-28-2016 02:48 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502038)
Take regulation too far and you inhibit growth. Loosen it too much in an area like finance and you get 2008, which destroys everything.
Of course. But you're talking about social welfare -- whether the level of government regulation is socially optimal. I was saying something different. The GOP has been waging war on the effectiveness of government -- setting aside law and order, and the military -- for decades. This has fundamentally been driven by the interests of the very rich, who fund the party and who do not want to pay taxes. Since Newt, it also has been driven by GOP politicians who have seen partisan advantage in frustrating Democrats. So, you have Mitch McConnell leading across the board obstruction of Obama's agenda with the objective of making him a one-term president.

Sometimes this war has had beneficial results for the rest of us. For example, I think most people can now agree that airline deregulation was a good thing. But at bottom, the GOP has not been trying to find the empirically optimum level of government. The answer is always, less.

Quote:
The problem is its always a pendulum swing. We go from govt over-involvement to govt under-involvement. Only once in a blue moon do we get a Clinton/Gingrich situation where we're governed in the sweet spot.
I'm not sure what pendulum swing you see, or why you think impeaching Clinton was good for anyone.

I like checks and balances. As Michael Bloomberg said yesterday, I don't think either party has a monopoly on good ideas or smart people, and in the abstract I would prefer bipartisan solutions that draw from both sides. But you can't have that with the current GOP.


eta: Make politics boring again.

Adder 07-28-2016 05:45 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 502043)
For example, I think most people can now agree that airline deregulation was a good thing.
A half-completed thought better suited for other forums: much of the purported concern about insufficient antitrust enforcement relates to industries that are not easily policed by antitrust enforcers.

Seems like those calling for more enforcement are primarily concerned about industries with some inherent amount of market power (generally, high fixed costs and/or significant network effects): airlines, hospitals, cable companies, etc. Aside from merger enforcement, there's not a whole lot the agencies, or even private litigants, can do afford consumers the benefits of competition. Theoretically you can break them up and create parallel monopolies, ala the Bells, but who thinks that actually accomplishes anything? The old answer was regulation, but no one seems to have any stomach for that anymore, and capture is very much a thing. I just don't really see what the complainers expect the agencies to do in these industries.

The choices seem to be (1) sponsor competitors to invest in duplicative infrastructure, or (2) regulate these entities' market conduct. Neither is within the power of FTC or DOJ, nor obviously good policy.

And then there's the additional question of whether things like search (or not that long ago browsers) fall in the same category.

taxwonk 07-29-2016 09:42 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 502047)
A half-completed thought better suited for other forums: much of the purported concern about insufficient antitrust enforcement relates to industries that are not easily policed by antitrust enforcers.

Seems like those calling for more enforcement are primarily concerned about industries with some inherent amount of market power (generally, high fixed costs and/or significant network effects): airlines, hospitals, cable companies, etc. Aside from merger enforcement, there's not a whole lot the agencies, or even private litigants, can do afford consumers the benefits of competition. Theoretically you can break them up and create parallel monopolies, ala the Bells, but who thinks that actually accomplishes anything? The old answer was regulation, but no one seems to have any stomach for that anymore, and capture is very much a thing. I just don't really see what the complainers expect the agencies to do in these industries.

The choices seem to be (1) sponsor competitors to invest in duplicative infrastructure, or (2) regulate these entities' market conduct. Neither is within the power of FTC or DOJ, nor obviously good policy.

And then there's the additional question of whether things like search (or not that long ago browsers) fall in the same category.
Regulate the fuck out of them. If that means they can't do certain things, too fucking bad. Cry me a river of alligator tears.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-29-2016 09:59 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 502042)
You're vastly overstating the influence of regulation (in this country anyway) on growth. The differences among Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush and Obama on regulation, generally, are not at all material to growth.

Sure, you can stifle an economy with regulation, but any threat of that being a US issue ended in the Reagan revolution.
Why can't people just start by recognizing that everyone likes some regulation and hates other regulation, and its not "regulation" itself that is the problem. It's what your regulating and how well you do it.

Yeah, republicans want all kinds of regulation when its come to immigration, from registering muslims to having employers police their employee's status. Democrats would rather be regulating banks.

And some regulation has been done horribly, while other regulation is done sufficiently well that we almost take it for granted (I think of pre-Sarbox securities regulation like this - no one wants to repeal our pre-Sarbox securities law, even if everyone wants to fiddle with Sarbox)

Only ideological idiots think "regulation" is itself the issue rather than what we're regulating.

Adder 07-29-2016 10:13 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 502049)
Regulate the fuck out of them.
Do you think that worked for airlines? I have no personal recollections of that era, but everything I've ever heard says flying was way, way more expensive. That doesn't sound good for consumers.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-29-2016 05:35 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 502047)
A half-completed thought better suited for other forums: much of the purported concern about insufficient antitrust enforcement relates to industries that are not easily policed by antitrust enforcers.

Seems like those calling for more enforcement are primarily concerned about industries with some inherent amount of market power (generally, high fixed costs and/or significant network effects): airlines, hospitals, cable companies, etc. Aside from merger enforcement, there's not a whole lot the agencies, or even private litigants, can do afford consumers the benefits of competition. Theoretically you can break them up and create parallel monopolies, ala the Bells, but who thinks that actually accomplishes anything? The old answer was regulation, but no one seems to have any stomach for that anymore, and capture is very much a thing. I just don't really see what the complainers expect the agencies to do in these industries.

The choices seem to be (1) sponsor competitors to invest in duplicative infrastructure, or (2) regulate these entities' market conduct. Neither is within the power of FTC or DOJ, nor obviously good policy.

And then there's the additional question of whether things like search (or not that long ago browsers) fall in the same category.
If monopoly (or duopoly) is more efficient than less concentration, regulate the monopoly (or duopolist) to strike a balance that rewards the company for their investment while protecting the public welfare. Agree that no one has the stomach for that; we have a Congress that believes in free markets.

taxwonk 07-30-2016 07:20 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 502051)
Do you think that worked for airlines? I have no personal recollections of that era, but everything I've ever heard says flying was way, way more expensive. That doesn't sound good for consumers.
Really? I could get flights almost anywhere. If the route was popular, then there were several airlines competing, so the price was fairly low. You didn't have to buy your ticket two months in advance, the seats were bigger, and you had enough legroom to go tot he head without evacuating your whole row to get in and out.

Of course, I'm going on personal recollection, so what do I know?

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2016 10:37 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 502042)
You're vastly overstating the influence of regulation (in this country anyway) on growth. The differences among Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush and Obama on regulation, generally, are not at all material to growth.

Sure, you can stifle an economy with regulation, but any threat of that being a US issue ended in the Reagan revolution.
I think what I may be overstating is the impact of federal regulation. The negative impacts are caused by a mix of fed and state regulation. The states stick their fingers into myriad areas, effecting barriers to entry and costs for no good reason.

"Compliance" should not be an industry. That it is a huge growth area shows a disturbing trend toward mindless rule creation.

HIPAA, ACA, endless employment laws, an impossibly complex tax code... This shit gets in the way.

The solution, for far too long, to problems has been, "let's pass a rule..." "Embrace Complexity," Obama finger wagged a few years ago. Right. Perhaps instead, require any person ascending political office first have some private sector experience -- to at least minimally understand the impact of his or her policies.

(Yeah, I know -- the big corps are also behind regulations because they stifle competition. I agree that has to be stopped. But that's another thread.)

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2016 10:46 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Of course. But you're talking about social welfare -- whether the level of government regulation is socially optimal. I was saying something different. The GOP has been waging war on the effectiveness of government -- setting aside law and order, and the military -- for decades. This has fundamentally been driven by the interests of the very rich, who fund the party and who do not want to pay taxes. Since Newt, it also has been driven by GOP politicians who have seen partisan advantage in frustrating Democrats. So, you have Mitch McConnell leading across the board obstruction of Obama's agenda with the objective of making him a one-term president.

Sometimes this war has had beneficial results for the rest of us. For example, I think most people can now agree that airline deregulation was a good thing. But at bottom, the GOP has not been trying to find the empirically optimum level of government. The answer is always, less.
Asking the fed govt to engage in nimble, smart regulation is, I agree, quite difficult. It's not that it's necessarily too big to do so. But there are too many automated processes and policies. People in it are rarely allowed to think, or to change policies quickly or subjectively enough to provide good regulation.

Quote:
I'm not sure what pendulum swing you see, or why you think impeaching Clinton was good for anyone.
That's cheap. The impeachment was appalling. I'm simply noting that Clinton and GOP Congress, however dysfunctional their relationship might have been, presided over a period of economic growth, with a balanced budget.

Quote:
I like checks and balances. As Michael Bloomberg said yesterday, I don't think either party has a monopoly on good ideas or smart people, and in the abstract I would prefer bipartisan solutions that draw from both sides. But you can't have that with the current GOP.
That is a fact.

Adder 08-01-2016 10:54 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502054)
I think what I may be overstating is the impact of federal regulation.
No, what you're overstating is the effects of relatively small changes in the regulatory state. We haven't swung widely from regulation to lack of regulation to just right in the way that would be necessary to drive the business cycle in the way you're suggesting. I'm not even sure it's possible, honestly.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2016 10:56 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
We're in pretty desperate need of that infrastructure investment anyway (do not spend any time thinking about the age of the gas and water pipes in your city, for example), so we better do it.
Like fossil fuel use temperance, this will only meaningfully occur when an immediate catastrophe stares us in the face. In the case of warming, it'll be massive refugee influxes from areas no longer habitable. Or perhaps the heat index in Manhattan reaching 130 on average for an entire summer. In the case of infrastructure, it'll be more Flints, perhaps a Johnstown Flood-like event at some huge dam, and electric grids going down regularly.

Quote:
This would be far more compelling if there was any indication they knew they were blowing it up.
They don't care. Behind Door Number 1, they're fucked. Behind Door Number 2, they might still be fucked. But there's a slim chance things could improve. It's only rational if you're, say, a coal miner in WV.

Why people who are doing well are voting for Trump is a more complex question.

Adder 08-01-2016 10:57 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502055)
I'm simply noting that Clinton and GOP Congress, however dysfunctional their relationship might have been, presided over a period of economic growth,
What makes you think they deserve any credit for that?

Quote:
with a balanced budget
Which was a function of growth (mostly luck) plus not adopting the GOP strategy of cutting taxes at every opportunity.

Adder 08-01-2016 11:02 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502057)
Like fossil fuel use temperance, this will only meaningfully occur when an immediate catastrophe stares us in the face. In the case of warming, it'll be massive refugee influxes from areas no longer habitable. Or perhaps the heat index in Manhattan reaching 130 on average for an entire summer. In the case of infrastructure, it'll be more Flints, perhaps a Johnstown Flood-like event at some huge dam, and electric grids going down regularly.
It won't happen until there is a crisis in a red state that requires federal intervention that will force the GOP to actually do something.

Meanwhile, blue states will be doing what they can to try to avert that type of crisis.


Quote:
It's only rational if you're, say, a coal miner in WV.
There's nothing rational about a coal miner in WV believing that Trump, who just hired a slew more foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago, is going to do anything to help you. But I'll grant you that there's lots of irrational belief that he might.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2016 11:03 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
What makes you think they deserve any credit for that?
There was war, but there was also compromise. Unlike today.

Quote:
Which was a function of growth (mostly luck) plus not adopting the GOP strategy of cutting taxes at every opportunity.
Clinton could've sought to use the economic gains occasioned by the tech boom to do something more ambitious (like the ACA). Instead, he was hands-off. And again, there was compromise. He and Gingrich couldn't kill each other, so they instead acted rationally. Does Gingrich deserve credit? Certainly not for trying to politically destroy Clinton. But for working with Clinton when it became clear he couldn't kill him? Yes. I see none of that from McConnell today.

Adder 08-01-2016 11:17 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502060)
There was war, but there was also compromise. Unlike today.
While I agree with that sentiment, I just don't think that fiscal policy played a particularly meaningful part in growth of the 1990s. Times were "normal," the Fed was the primary actor in managing the macroeconomy, and growth was mostly the business cycle doing its thing.

Quote:
Clinton could've sought to use the economic gains occasioned by the tech boom to do something more ambitious (like the ACA).
You mean like he did?

Quote:
I see none of that from McConnell today.
100% agree that things have changed for the worse on the GOP side.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2016 11:46 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
You mean like he did?
He tried to do HC reform, realized it was a political disaster, and quickly jettisoned it (and threw Hillary under the bus).

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2016 11:47 AM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
There's nothing rational about a coal miner in WV believing that Trump, who just hired a slew more foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago, is going to do anything to help you. But I'll grant you that there's lots of irrational belief that he might.
He's climate change denier. They're coal miners.

Replaced_Texan 08-01-2016 12:10 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502057)
Like fossil fuel use temperance, this will only meaningfully occur when an immediate catastrophe stares us in the face. In the case of warming, it'll be massive refugee influxes from areas no longer habitable. Or perhaps the heat index in Manhattan reaching 130 on average for an entire summer. In the case of infrastructure, it'll be more Flints, perhaps a Johnstown Flood-like event at some huge dam, and electric grids going down regularly.
Maybe hundreds of thousands of people flooding into Europe?

Tyrone Slothrop 08-01-2016 01:14 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502054)
The solution, for far too long, to problems has been, "let's pass a rule..." "Embrace Complexity," Obama finger wagged a few years ago. Right. Perhaps instead, require any person ascending political office first have some private sector experience -- to at least minimally understand the impact of his or her policies.
Antitrust law is an area where the government generally deals with problems not by passing rules, but by bringing enforcement actions to block business conduct that goes too far. The political appointees who get jobs in the DOJ and FTC generally have significant private-sector experience. I personally think this works pretty well, but you don't usually see people holding antitrust up as a model of good government. I suspect that this is because the people who complain about process are really interested in the substance, and will never be satisfied. The people who complain that regulation is onerous mostly have strong interests against government regulation, and vice versa ideologically on the other side (although there are fewer of them and they are much less like to have a financial interest).

Tyrone Slothrop 08-01-2016 01:18 PM
Re: Interesting Perspective
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 502055)
Asking the fed govt to engage in nimble, smart regulation is, I agree, quite difficult. It's not that it's necessarily too big to do so. But there are too many automated processes and policies. People in it are rarely allowed to think, or to change policies quickly or subjectively enough to provide good regulation.
No one ever talks about the federal regulation that works well. All you hear are complaints. This colors views.

Quote:
That's cheap. The impeachment was appalling. I'm simply noting that Clinton and GOP Congress, however dysfunctional their relationship might have been, presided over a period of economic growth, with a balanced budget.
That is certainly true. Oddly, for many people it's the disfunction of the relationship that stands out in retrospect. I mean, Newt Gingrich.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:14 PM.
Page 22 of 126 « First 122021 22 23243272122 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com